This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Mornin Monte. I don't think they consider the Syrian MB a western power, nor are the Saud and those who follow them. Are they not responsible for the Civil uprisings and then the forcible change of removing Assad from power? Did they not use the US to get involved with aid and soft power. Plus have been influencing the US and others to keep up the pressure on Assad?

Didn't Clinton hold her Friends of Syria's Meetings in the Abu Dhabi and some more of the lavish establishments of the ME, to begin that process. While Johnny Quest McCain took pics with terrorists in the Free Syrian Army Rebels?

Neither do I, and they certainly were/are contributing to the rise of Islamic extremism. I've yet to figure out what its advantage is to them. And good morning to you as well MMC

That's ridiculous. Had the US and other Western powers not interfered with president Assad's war on terror from the beginning, he would have crushed the terrorists operating in his country early on. But regime change in Syria, as with Libya, has been a long term US foreign policy ambition. Stop being gullible and patronising. US policy in the ME is destroying it. And the ideology of radical Islamic extremism, far predates the Arab Spring. Again, don't pedal such propaganda. The leaders that have been removed/neutralised in the region contained it however, and US policy has let that genie out of the bottle. Have fun putting it back in.

Kind of denigrating the position of "president" when you refer to him as such don't you think? I don't recall the last time he was elected come to think about it. Also, the US didn't take the aggressive posture in the beginning. If you recall, one of the first big moves was that the EU voted to place an embargo on Syria.

Putting that side, I'm not gullible, I realize that it's been an aspiration of US Foreign Policy to remove guys like Hussein, Qaddafi, and Assad, and I've never tried to hide that fact. The issue at hand though is that you believe (as do many others so this isn't just you) that American Foreign Policy has always been about gaining more power and it's not. Best case scenario for the US isn't that we have a Soviet-style puppet, but that the people have the ability to determine the direction of their society. I should know, I use to believe as such. Because for the longest times I believed that if the people were granted power, real say in the direction of their governments, we'd have a more peaceful and prosperous world. Sadly, it's only after I've seen time after time where the people of the Middle East haven't gravitated toward secular or moderate governments (the lone exception being Tunisia I believe), but the more radical and dangerous ones. You can blame US Foreign Policy for being naive to be sure, but not for being malicious or evil.

[QUOTE=Hamster Buddha;1064312665]Kind of denigrating the position of "president" when you refer to him as such don't you think? I don't recall the last time he was elected come to think about it. Also, the US didn't take the aggressive posture in the beginning. If you recall, one of the first big moves was that the EU voted to place an embargo on Syria.

Putting that side, I'm not gullible, I realize that it's been an aspiration of US Foreign Policy to remove guys like Hussein, Qaddafi, and Assad, and I've never tried to hide that fact. The issue at hand though is that you believe (as do many others so this isn't just you) that American Foreign Policy has always been about gaining more power and it's not. Best case scenario for the US isn't that we have a Soviet-style puppet, but that the people have the ability to determine the direction of their society. I should know, I use to believe as such. Because for the longest times I believed that if the people were granted power, real say in the direction of their governments, we'd have a more peaceful and prosperous world. Sadly, it's only after I've seen time after time where the people of the Middle East haven't gravitated toward secular or moderate governments (the lone exception being Tunisia I believe), but the more radical and dangerous ones. You can blame US Foreign Policy for being naive to be sure, but not for being malicious or

I don't think I've been able to get a bead on this but do you consider ISIS a long term strategic threat to the US if it continues to exist? And if so, do you really think that the current political actors in the region can accomplish defeating the outfit at this point without US cooperation?

Between 20 and 25 ISIS fighters wearing Iraqi Army uniforms infiltrated al-Asad airbase Friday -- the sprawling western Iraqi base where 400 American forces are training Iraqi troops -- and tried to enter the base, military officials said. The ISIS fighters were killed as Iraqi forces repelled the attack, officials said, and no U.S. military service members were affected by the attack. A statement released by Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve confirmed the attack.

Kirby confirmed that on Thursday ISIS fighters had taken over al-Baghdadi, a town located less than 10 miles from the base at al-Asad. ISIS fighters who had been besieging the town for months were able to make into the town on Thursday and take over the local Iraqi police station. The taking of al-Baghdadi was the first time in months that ISIS had gained ground in Iraq, where it has been in a defensive posture.....snip~